Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Look2cool

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Look2cool

Look2cool (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Populated account categories: confirmed · suspected

For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Look2cool/Archive.


30 May 2025

[edit]

– A checkuser has completed a check on relevant users in this case, and it is now awaiting administration and close.

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

At Darwin Del Fabro:

As a slight aside: Has it been considered that this farm and EuphonyRandolph may be the same? Positive interaction timelines between the two at:

  • Darwin Del Fabro
  • Liz Lerman
    • ER: Liah78 with an edit summary of "Removed promotional content."
    • L2c: Tac91 with an edit summary of "Removed promotional content."
  • Elsa Murano
    • ER: Utaq removed "promotional" content, some of which was sourced, and added 9 cn tags.
    • L2c: Safwaf removed a cn tag from a now sourced section, adds another cn tag.
  • Federal Women's Film Program
    • ER: Wu39 removes an erroneous footnote "[4]" and adds cn tags.
    • L2c: Look2cool removes erroneous footnotes "[2]" and "[3]".
  • Sharmagne Leland St. John
    • ER: Utaq "removed un-sourced promotional content."
    • L2c: Chosensecond "eliminated promotional content" and added 2 cn tags.

If it is likely that these two farms are the same, then Accepted2025's username falls right in line with other usernames in the EuphonyRandolph farm like: Message2024, Vacuum2024, Auno2025, Speed2023, etc. And this behavior of one sock uploading to commons and another sock using the upload has been seen there before too with Utaq and Usrp12 at this archived report. ​ fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 22:43, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

24 June 2025

[edit]

– A user has requested CheckUser. An SPI clerk will shortly look at the case and endorse or decline the request.

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

BrandonMorgan21 improves sock Approved2025's additions, their accounts were created 7 days apart, their first edits occurred 6 days apart, their first draft creations 1 day apart. At Orlando von Einsiedel Approved makes content additions [1], then Brandon performs fixes of those changes 12 hours later [2]. At J. Eric Robinson Approved creates the stub [3], then Brandon expands it [4]. This is in addition to what appears to be typical blp upe.

If a CU is accepted, as mentioned in the prior report, it appears this group and EuphonyRandolph may be the same and running a check against known socks from ER in addition to Look2cool may be useful. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 06:57, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Behavioral update, J. Eric Robinson was nominated for deletion, and BrandonMorgan21 attempted to move it to draft [5] in what appears to be a move to avoid deletion, and before replying below. Quacks like upe to me, which this group evidently performs. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 08:36, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're absolutely right. I moved the article to draft space to prevent it from being deleted, allowing me the opportunity to further improve the content, add reliable sources, and strengthen the internal links. This way, the research and effort I've already put into expanding the page won't go to waste. BrandonMorgan21 (talk) 08:40, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Hi there, thanks for bringing this to my attention. I see that there are concerns about similarities between accounts and timing. I want to be clear that I only use this account and I’m not affiliated with any other users. I’ve worked independently on a number of biographies and topic-related drafts, and I try my best to follow Wikipedia’s editing standards. Some of the subjects or types of articles I’ve worked on might look similar in theme or format, which I realize can raise questions. But everything I’ve worked on through this account is solely my own, and any overlap with other users’ work is purely a coincidence. I’m happy to answer any questions or provide more details if needed. I respect the community’s commitment to transparency and want to make sure I’m following all the rules around editing, conflict of interest, and sockpuppetry. Thanks again for your time, and feel free to reach out if anything needs clarification. BrandonMorgan21 (talk) 09:41, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

​Hello BrandonMorgan21,
After an edit break approaching 5 days, you’ve shown up at this report within 3 hours — I appreciate the punctuality.
“Conflict of interest” has not been mentioned in this report, so it is curious that its been pointed out explicitly. Was “conflict of interest” a concern mentioned to you at a different venue?
“I want to be clear that I only use this account” — This implies that the edits under “BrandonMorgan21” reflect the totality of your contributions to Wikipedia, is this a correct interpretation?
It may also be helpful to whomever reviews this case if rationale was provided about why those edits were made at those pages at those times — but this is not compulsory.
Thank you, fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 10:21, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given that you’ve replied again to a different part of this report, would you mind taking a moment to answer the questions above? It may be helpful.
Best, fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 08:55, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to take a moment to respond and hopefully clear a few things up.
First, about the timing. I hadn’t been active on Wikipedia for a few days, but once I saw the report, I replied within a few hours. I don’t think that’s out of the ordinary. I wasn’t ignoring anything; I just hadn’t been online. As soon as I saw it, I did what anyone in my position would do—I responded.
On the mention of a “conflict of interest,” you’re right, it wasn’t brought up directly in this report. I only mentioned it generally, not because it was raised elsewhere, but just to be open and transparent.
As for the account usage, yes, I only use this account. Everything I’ve done on Wikipedia has been through "BrandonMorgan21." I’m not using any other accounts or trying to hide anything. What you see here is the full picture.
Regarding the edits I made, I’m more than willing to talk about why I made them. I always try to base my edits on reliable sources and improve pages where I can. Honestly, I didn’t realize I’d need to explain the exact timing of each edit, but if that helps clarify things, I’m happy to do it.
I hope this clears up any doubts. I’m here in good faith and open to whatever next steps are needed.
Sorry for the late response — I’ll try to be more punctual from now on. BrandonMorgan21 (talk) 10:53, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply, I'm sure it will prove helpful to whomever reviews this case. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 10:56, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Look2cool&oldid=1298080007"